Oh, I think I pretty much did answer the question. No...not appropriate to wipe out a village to get a single person. Yes, absolutely appropriate to do whats necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat.you failed to answer the question....
don't fear a gotcha bomb, I don't play that way.
Oh, I think I pretty much did answer the question. No...not appropriate to wipe out a village to get a single person. Yes, absolutely appropriate to do whats necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat.
I did describe specific conditions under which that is IS NOT acceptable and when it IS acceptable. Like I said, al-Awlaki that effectively foiled normal judicial procedures. That alone would not justify military strikes. The added detail of al-Awlaki representing - certainly directing others to commit - mass murder attempts of American civilians, means his prosecution should be treated as an exception to normal judicial procedures.
This guy didn't steal a candy bar and then run to Yemen to escape the law. He wasn't sitting Yemen preaching about punishing his high school arch-enemy by TP-ing his house. We should stop acting as if this situation were ordinary. It was extra-ordinary and is thus justified.
We cannot know if al-Awlaki was planning another 9/11 and the death of another 3,000 innocents. We did know he advocated and trained others to commit mass murder of Americans. What can you say about the government who permits him the opportunity to carry out an atrocity?
We knew about Osama Bin Laden and had the opportunity to apprehend him before 9/11. Our confused sense of justice and quixotic quest for "due process" prevented us from stopping him when we had the chance. Would you be willing to stand before the family members of 3,000 innocents killed and explain to them why "due process" for "one" self-admitted mass murderer was more important than the lives of 3,000 innocents? What about 5,000? 50,000?
This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.
OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.
I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.
If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.
We have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.
Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.
I am no fan of Obama under any circumstances, or by any stretch, because I think he's been useless and the king of all liars, but I will admit that since he has decided that killing the terrorists as I have been saying all along I support killing OBL and now Anwar al-Awlaki and those with him.
In these cases Obama is doing the right thing.
I also have to say that I now have eliminated the first GOP candidate from any consideration and that is Ron Paul.
I think he could not be more wrong. You don't give a poisonous snake a break you kill it.
Al-Qaida understands death and nothing else because they are all crazy as hell.
My view is the individual mandate is debatable. It's also going through the correct channels to check it's constitutionality...the Supreme Court. It's not comparable to an executive decision to bypass the Constitution.What's your opinion of Obamacare? Just wondering.
I'll cover this one first so you get an answer. I wasn't dodging the question. I considered it part-and-parcel to the larger question of "do we just trust the president?" It's also off-topic, but I'll answer anyway. Your question was: "Bush said he O.Ked torture to protect the United States. Should we have no simply accepted that?"
This is different from the Obama question in that Bush admits he OK'd torture. In Obama's case, we don't know what methods he used. You'll hate me for this, but I do accept Bush's decision to employ water-boarding. I accept this because the prisoners are not physically injured during the process. Now, it's possible that Obama approved water-boarding and doesn't want to admit it. Would I accept the guilt of Al-Awlaki based solely on data gathered from torture? No, I wouldn't. But if that data was supported by other data gathered by intelligence services, then I would trust it. The acceptability of torture is worthy of a different thread entirely and I would hope we don't get derailed in this thread over it.
The reason I bring up OBL is that he's an example of US failure when we tried to hard to stick to judicial principles. It certainly is honorable to remain rock-steady in the pursuit of fairness for everyone. But practicality must sometimes supersede "absolute fairness" when a situation is extraordinary. I think it's fair to bring up OBL because it doesn't matter to the 3,000 dead or their families whether their executioner was American or Saudi. When someone proves they can carry out mass killings and state that they intend to continue doing so, they must be pursued, extra-judicially if necessary.
If an American born and bred mass-killer on US soil is tracked back to his home-made fortress that foils any attempt at non-lethal methods to apprehend him, and the thereby necessary assault fails to capture him, but kills him instead, isn't that acceptable? Would anyone shed tears for him because he didn't face a trial in the normal judicial manner? Is this scenario effectively any different from al-Awlaki's?
To carry out a court case like this openly would take months at least and could possibly take years. Wouldn't it be irresponsible of our government to conduct a strictly aboveboard court case in abstentia that permits al-Awlaki the time and freedom carry out mass killings? The evidence may have been gathered but presenting it during the very slow and arduous judicial process could take far too long to help save thousands of American lives. Since most of the evidence had already been gathered, doesn't it make more sense to have a judge make one quick decision, based on the gathered evidence, from behind closed doors? When time is of the essence, and possibly thousands of American lives are in danger, an abbreviated judicial process like this must be considered the best available under the circumstances.
Lastly, presenting evidence in an open court may compromise our intelligence systems. Any evidence presented must also show "how it was obtained" to ascertain it's validity. This must be answered. If the answer is "we gathered this from Ali Bab's restaurant by a mike planted under table #3 in the corner," well now that intelligence gathering system is now compromised and can no longer be used. US Agents placed these systems at great expense and great danger to themselves. Blithely disregarding that effort by just offering it up in court is callous and thoughtless and irreverent.
You are quite right to insist that the killing of an American citizen cannot be conducted lightly. It is correct to question it. But this particular case is extraordinary. The details alone prevent the standard judicial practices we are accustomed to. The case of al-Awlaki vs. the USA must be considered an exception, not a standard, yet acceptable nonetheless due to it's extraordinary circumstances.
Yeah, it's terrible to try to uphold due process of law, right? Who needs it anyway? Just gets in the way.
Love you "conservatives".
I consider myself conservative.
EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11The entire argument is semantic in nature. Assassination, killing, boom-boom, whatever you wanna call it. We killed that mofo and he had it coming, and personally I would consider him a legitimate military target and an enemy of the state.
EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11
Read more: EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined At The Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 | Fox News
So what's your point with this article?
:lamo :roll: funny how most wanted terrorist were at one time friends of our military
Thank you. Certainly we can agree to disagree.I wasn't really calling you out on this BUT whether I agree with you or not, I do respect a consistant position. If your position is that you are going to trust the CiC to carry out what is needed, regardless of who that may be, I may disagree but I respect the position.
True, but we cannot know in advance how long it would take. McKinley died over 100 years ago; our judicial system has changed substantially since then. Since we were "out of presidents" *ahem* after the assassination, Czolgosz did not pose an ongoing danger to the American people, and a trial could proceed at whatever pace was required. al-Awlaki was not under US custody when a trial "could have occurred" and so time (or the lack thereof) was still forcing the hand of US authorities.I do not believe it would or that there is any way it should. It didn't take but 6 weeks to try and execute Czolgosz for the assassination of McKinley.
Who's to say there wasn't? There very well could have been one, but held behind closed doors to maintain operational secrecy. And if there was one, we would not know about it for many years as it may cause a rift, already wider than the current one, between the US and Yemen. Personally, I'm guessing there wasn't one. I imagine a "law expert," possibly a judge, was brought in and the evidence presented to him. It was deemed that the US had a good enough case to warrant action, and so the US did. We'll never know the name of this expert because his safety is also important, and so that foreign US-based intelligence services cannot capture and interrogate him. And you can be certain they have no qualms about torture.All of that is true which is why I said that I would be fine to have this done in a military trial. We would have all the evidence on record and in some point in the future we would be able to decide whether what was done was correct or not.
I do not believe we can simply accept "well this was a special circumstance". So was torture (which you do say you were fine with), but many others would argue differently.
In this case, quite frankly, Ron Paul has no idea of what the Constitution requires. He is off on a tangent that is based much more on the neo-isolationist view he believes the government should be following than the actual far more robust authority the government possesses and more active foreign policy path the government implements.
The Constitution does not require and has never required that combatants be treated as ordinary criminals. Such a requirement would dramatically undermine the U.S. capacity to wage war.
Any cases brought against the drone strike on Mr. Awlaki won't be successful and, IMO, there is a high probability, that the U.S. Supreme Court will choose not to hear such cases. The President's decision falls squarely within his authority as Commander and Chief. There is no ambiguity. In addition, Mr. Awlaki was a legitimate military objective under the Laws of War, so even that line of legal attack is not available. In short, the President's war-related authorities were involved and the decision made was both legitimate and constitutional.
Any more so than any other terrorist I am intrigued why you think it does. The guy isnt an American citizen who happens to be a terrorist, he is a terrorist who happens to have been born in America. If we kill 99 out of 100 without regard to their country of birth what is this need to NOT kill the 1?you don't believe this guy being an American citizen raises legal "difficulties"?
Any more so than any other terrorist I am intrigued why you think it does. The guy isnt an American citizen who happens to be a terrorist, he is a terrorist who happens to have been born in America. If we kill 99 out of 100 without regard to their country of birth what is this need to NOT kill the 1?
Any more so than any other terrorist I am intrigued why you think it does. The guy isnt an American citizen who happens to be a terrorist, he is a terrorist who happens to have been born in America. If we kill 99 out of 100 without regard to their country of birth what is this need to NOT kill the 1?
you have no problem killing 99 terrorists responsible for slaughtering innocent men women and children...but...1...that does bother you. Yeah...that boggles the mind a bit.is doesn't matter if he is a terrorist how happens to be an American or an American who happens to be a terrorist... this should raise some legal questions that need tending too.
I understand you aren't concerned with the legal "difficulties"... but some folks are.
you have no problem killing 99 terrorists responsible for slaughtering innocent men women and children...but...1...that does bother you. Yeah...that boggles the mind a bit.
This is the problem. He did have rights. One does not lose their rights simply because someone else disagree's with their choices.
I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.
If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.
We have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.
Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.
OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.
This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?